Over the past decade the two main political parties in DC, the Republicans and Democrats, have overwhelmingly voted for Warfare and Welfare in one fashion or another.

the Warfare Party

This party votes for:

endless wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, and other areas with no specifically defined objectives

the PATRIOT Act, a war on US citizens and their civil liberties

the TSA and its parent DHS, following closely behind in the spirit of the PATRIOT Act

assassination of US citizens without due process

the largest hand-over of unchecked war authority from Congress to the executive branch in modern American history

the “War on Drugs”, which is really a war on peaceful American citizens that simply wish to be left alone

the Welfare Party

This party votes for:

government-run healthcare

expansion of Medicare

No Child Left Behind, one of the largest Department of Education expansions in history

socialized national property insurance

billions in “anti-recession” stimulus spending

billions in corporate welfare and subsidies

You think you know which party is which? Think again – it’s a trick question! That’s right – as a matter of fact, both parties have overwhelmingly supported these un-Constitutional, collectivist, anti-Liberty policies; and not only over the past 10 years, but much longer.

No, I’m not talking about the tv show. Interventionism (the policy or doctrine of intervening, especially government interference in the affairs of another state or in domestic economic affairs) is, of course, the opposite of non-interventionism (abstention by a nation from interference in the affairs of other nations or in those of its own political subdivisions). In what has become a much-admired-by-many House of Representatives floor speech in early 2009 – titled “What If?” – current Presidential candidate Ron Paul spoke the following words:

“What if we wake up one day and realize that the terrorist threat is the predictable consequence of our meddling in the affairs of others, and has nothing to do with us being free and prosperous?”

In my experience over the last few years, the immediate reaction upon absorbing this quote by many who call or think of themselves as “conservative” is that, well, countries like Iran refer to the US as “the Great Satan” and want to destroy the US’ greatest Middle Eastern ally, Israel. But let us consider history.

Did you know Iran hasn’t referred to the US as “the Great Satan” forever? In fact, the term was first used in 1979, only just over three decades ago. Why? Because about 60 years ago, the US government (and I use the term “the US government”, instead of “we” or “us”, carefully – I had no vote in and nothing to do with it) started meddling in Iran’s affairs. Look at Mosaddegh and the coup d’état in 1953. The US government overthrew and replaced him with the Shah. Then, 26 years later, the US government decided that its previous decision was no longer in its best interests, so the US government deposed the Shah. That’s only a fraction of US involvement.

Imagine if another country, 100x more militarily and economically stronger than ours, did the same thing to us for 60 years. If, say, China.. or the Soviets.. set up political and military coups, basically ran OUR country. We too would probably refer to them as “the Great Satan”. The CIA calls this “blowback“. And as I penned in my previous post of the same name: “America is exceptional, it is the most prosperous country in the history of the world, but it is not infallible – in fact, far from it.”

We have to apply history and perspective to our position here. The issue raised with regard to Iran (and other Arab nations) is in fact exactly what the “What If?” quote was referring to.

It is hardly the fault of the average US citizen not to have in-depth knowledge of these facts. We spend our lives slaving away for 8, 10, 12 hours a day (at least 3-4 of those hours of every day go directly to various governments in various ways). Then we come home and spend the rest of our night recuperating, trying to relax, and planning for the next day. We don’t have the time to become scholars on political history. Almost nobody in positions of power or influence ever talks about any of this important history; one has to really take the initiative and dig deep to find it. And that’s why I’ve become such an adamant supporter of Ron Paul. Personally, he brought me face-to-face with a lot of these issues I had never realized or heard about or dealt with before, and he’s the only one that will really address it when it counts (i.e. in the debates), even though it’s an unpopular subject. And studying these previously unknown histories for over 3 years has provided a completely new perspective on it all.

Of course, though, the question will remain: What about Israel? The answer is clear – in fact, Thomas Jefferson clued us in a few centuries ago. The US should be great friends with Israel, in trade and diplomacy. Israel should be free to defend itself without condemnation from the US. If it wants to make preemptive strikes, fine. It is a sovereign country with a superior military and can easily do so. But the US’ only moral action at this point is to apologize to Israel for the hostile environment the US has created in the Middle East, and then get out of it.

More foreign intervention is like more quantitative easing. We can print more and more money, but we are just building a bigger bubble. And when we finally stretch ourselves too thin militarily and economically because of our need to be the policeman of the world, the crash will be devastating.

In tonight’s Republican debate, Ron Paul was challenged on his foreign policy stance – specifically, an article he wrote for the tenth anniversary of 9/11. The article in question was called “Ask the Right Questions and Face the Truth“. In it, Dr Paul illuminates both the causes and effects of 9/11 – that is, both why it happened, and what it has done to the US. It goes all the way back to Iran in the 1950s with Mossadegh, and the middle eastern intervention continued right up through 2001. After the tragedy, we invaded an Iraq that even Bush himself admitted had nothing to do with 9/11. US militarism now extends to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Libya as well, and that’s just the “short list” of declared action. The endless wars have been accompanied by blatant disregard for and losses of civil liberties, many of which the populace begged for in its initial, frantic response to the events of that day.

Those that claim to (or want to) have an intellectual acumen will impartially read the whole of Dr Paul’s article and study the supporting evidence before coming to a conclusion. Anyone care to explain why he’s wrong?

Some in the crowd booed when he said “this whole idea that the WHOLE Muslim world is responsible for this and they’re attacking us because we’re free and prosperous, that is just not true”. So… the WHOLE Muslim world IS responsible for this? Of course that’s ridiculous. What’s left to boo? People don’t really still believe the myth that they attack us “because we’re free”, do they? That’s an obsolete catchphrase supported by absolutely zero fact. It is well-established at this point that “insurgents” (we called them Freedom Fighters during the Soviet-Afghan War) resist the US because we occupy their lands and are seen as imperialists. We’ve been intervening in middle eastern affairs for over 60 years now. The CIA itself recognizes that this creates what’s called “blowback”. This is NOT a matter of opinion.

Ironically, Ron Paul himself receives some blowback because he has the courage to tell the truth, even when it’s unpopular. Dr Paul was booed because he forces America to look in the mirror, and it doesn’t always like what it sees. Paradigms and worldviews are challenged, and many times, the truth hurts. But only by embracing that truth can we heal.

As a moral people, we need to recognize when good policies are good, and when bad policies are bad. America is exceptional, it is the most prosperous country in the history of the world, but it is not infallible – in fact, far from it. Ron Paul is the only candidate on that stage who’s not afraid to call a spade a spade, and we should be open to honest discussion about this issue from a brilliant man who has studied it in-depth – not dismissive and closed-minded, as some of the crowd members at the debate were tonight. There is a reason Ron Paul receives the greatest amount of military contributions – those who have been there, and seen it, know what is really going on. Not only is it patriotic to face reality and question with boldness… it is decidedly UN-patriotic NOT to.

Over the past few centuries, the notions and flavors of conservatism and liberalism have become confused and conflated. The American Revolutionaries, for example, were contemporary liberals, while their adversaries the Tories (or British Loyalists) were conservatives. Today’s conservatives, on the other hand, embrace the American Revolutionaries, whereas today’s liberals probably would necessarily have embraced neither. Since these definitions have been lost in translation, this article will attempt to annotate a brief history of true conservatism and other similar and/or competing ideologies.

Classical liberalism was an 18th-19th century philosophy of general antipathy toward the state which argued for free markets, individual liberty, and natural law. “Liberal” in this historic definition is similar to “liberate” – from the Latin liberalis, “of freedom”. This ideology espoused rebellion against authoritarianism in the manner of John Locke, along with the total laissez-faire economics of Adam Smith. It held a general distrust of governments in light of historical erosions of civil liberties.

Conservatism (in the United States) is in practice a far cry from classical liberalism, though oratorically it is very similar. Mainstream modern conservatism pays lip service to the notion of limited, Constitutional government, but in fact many conservatives only espouse limited government in the areas they choose. Many of today’s so-called conservatives are now pro-big-military, pro-social-intervention, pro-power-state. This clearly contradicts the “limited government” rhetoric; whereas today’s liberals want big government for social programs, today’s conservatives want big government in other places.

Neoconservatism evolved as a result of progressives (Democrats) who, beginning in the 1970s and 80s, infiltrated the conservative (Republican) party in an attempt to shift it to the left on the political scale. Some of their main goals were increased foreign interventionism in defense of Israel and expansion of welfare programs, all in the name of conservatism. They were overwhelmingly successful. 9/11 was the spark that really lit the fire, when Bush declared that the United States should seek to promote liberal democracy around the world as cause for invading Iraq.

Paleoconservatism, on the other hand, is much more consistent on limited, Constitutional government. Paleoconservatives often tend to be religious and carry strong moral sentiments, but being aware of the “slippery slope” are more leery of advocating state intervention into many of these social and moral strata.

Libertarianism evolved as a contemporary approach to classical liberalism, and is sometimes called neo-classical liberalism or neoliberalism. This school of thought was revived by more modern intellectuals and Austrian economists such as Bastiat, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, and Friedman. The term “libertarian” is typically associated with the United States, as similar movements around the world are known under different labels. It is characterized by a fundamental belief in liberty, and all its tenets flow from that point. Libertarians and paleoconservatives share a lot of common ground, but the former is antithetical to the latter’s preference for state-imposed social conservatism.

The Founding Fathers would be thought of at the time as classical liberals. In today’s terms, this would make them libertarian. Those who insist on invoking the Founding Fathers need to get consistent on their philosophy and embrace real libertarianism. Otherwise they are just regurgitating some flavor of neo- or faux conservatism. If only they knew what is often said and done in their name, the Founding Fathers would be rolling over in their individual (not collective) graves.